Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Paintr]

Originally Posted by Themis

A law degree and a media contract.

respectfully snipped

And a huge ego?

OT
Nice to 'see' ya again! Any ham sandwitches to spare? LOL!

[The World According]

Under what set of circumstances could members of the defense team respectfully resign the case? Some have said the judge will not let them off the case and they will have to see it through. If Andrea and Jose have irreconcilable differences , for example, could one or both of them resign their post?

[AZlawyer]

Originally Posted by The World According

Under what set of circumstances could members of the defense team respectfully resign the case? Some have said the judge will not let them off the case and they will have to see it through. If Andrea and Jose have irreconcilable differences , for example, could one or both of them resign their post?

It's a lot easier for ONE attorney from a team to leave, as long as one or more is staying on the case.

But it might be tougher for AL to be let off the case the closer to trial we get, as she is the only one on the team who is qualified to try a DP case.

[BondJamesBond]

Is the definition of "child abuse" per Florida law simple enough to post here?

[rhornsby]

Originally Posted by BondJamesBond

Is the definition of "child abuse" per Florida law simple enough to post here?

Child Abuse has three basic elements:

1. Intentionally striking or intentionally causing bodily harm;
2. To a child under the age of 18;
3. By a caregiver.

[ynotdivein]

Originally Posted by rhornsby

Child Abuse has three basic elements:

1. Intentionally striking or intentionally causing bodily harm;
2. To a child under the age of 18;
3. By a caregiver.

So... in this case, it's all about "intentionally"... that is to say, whether a caregiver/mother has perhaps UNintentionally struck or caused bodily harm to a child under age 18.

But then whither the duct tape?

And why didn't KC take a plea way way way back?

[Horace Finklestein]

My question is: What happens if Casey's defense team dissolves, resigns, leaves for whatever reason - Will everything sort of 'start over'? Would she get a public defender? It seems like there would be preventative measures to prevent a person from indefinitely postponing trials because of representation issues...

[texas77878]

Originally Posted by rhornsby

Child Abuse has three basic elements:

1. Intentionally striking or intentionally causing bodily harm;
2. To a child under the age of 18;
3. By a caregiver.

thank you thank you thank you!

I have missed you so much. I've checked your site several times but woe is me you haven't written there either!

anyway it is great to see you here.

[lauriej]

..in the scott peterson case---geragos also ran out of money--yet saw the case through ( due to state funding i believe?)

..could the same apply here----baez and co. HAVE to stay on, declare kc indigent---apply for and accept whatever the state of florida will pay them ?

[butterfly1978]

Tonight on the Levi Show, LP was asked about the private meeting with the judge and what it was about. LP said that he believes that it is because RK's girlfriend overheard a conversation at the jail between Casey and JB about where Caylee's remains were and that off that he went and found Caylee. He stated that if this is the case and Caylee's remains were found "illegally" (I know sounds weird) that all evidence found from the scene could not be used. He beleives that the SA has information that Kronk found Caylee per his girlfriend listening in on a confidential conversation, and now the SA needs to know what to do.
I don't know if its true, but IFits true, can they really not use the evidence from the remains scene? Including the autopsy report, because she was found through information that was privileged and over heard?

[AZlawyer]

Originally Posted by butterfly1978

Tonight on the Levi Show, LP was asked about the private meeting with the judge and what it was about. LP said that he believes that it is because RK's girlfriend overheard a conversation at the jail between Casey and JB about where Caylee's remains were and that off that he went and found Caylee. He stated that if this is the case and Caylee's remains were found "illegally" (I know sounds weird) that all evidence found from the scene could not be used. He beleives that the SA has information that Kronk found Caylee per his girlfriend listening in on a confidential conversation, and now the SA needs to know what to do.
I don't know if its true, but IFits true, can they really not use the evidence from the remains scene? Including the autopsy report, because she was found through information that was privileged and over heard?

Yes, but I wouldn't assume that's true just because LP said it.

[butterfly1978]

Originally Posted by AZlawyer

Yes, but I wouldn't assume that's true just because LP said it.

Oh I know, that LP, isn't the most reliable source, but if he is right OMG I think I will

[hroark2112]

I thought the whole "RK's girlfriend worked at the jail" theory had been long ago debunked!

[Jolynna]

Originally Posted by AZlawyer

Yes, but I wouldn't assume that's true just because LP said it.

I think there is something to what LP is saying. RK and the Daisy chain rumor were the first things that popped into my head when I heard that the prosecutors wanted to meet with the judge privately. I posted that opinion too...

Originally Posted by Jolynna

All I can think of is if RK found out where Caylee was because he knew someone that eavesdropped on a confidential meeting between KC and an agent of her lawyer (or her lawyer). snipped...Last edited by Jolynna; 02-03-2010 at 10:17 PM.http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...4&postcount=33

AZlawyer or RHornsby or themis,

If true, would that mean that the evidence found on Suburban, including Caylee's body and the duct tape, could be thrown out?

[Spangle]

Originally Posted by butterfly1978

Tonight on the Levi Show, LP was asked about the private meeting with the judge and what it was about. LP said that he believes that it is because RK's girlfriend overheard a conversation at the jail between Casey and JB about where Caylee's remains were and that off that he went and found Caylee. He stated that if this is the case and Caylee's remains were found "illegally" (I know sounds weird) that all evidence found from the scene could not be used. He beleives that the SA has information that Kronk found Caylee per his girlfriend listening in on a confidential conversation, and now the SA needs to know what to do.
I don't know if its true, but IFits true, can they really not use the evidence from the remains scene? Including the autopsy report, because she was found through information that was privileged and over heard?

JB seems to think that ANY conversation he has with his client is automatically confidential. We know that by his statements in reference to the Tapes of him and her possibility talking in the hall. After the body was found.

IF a conversation was over heard in the Jail, and evidence was found from what was heard. Would the evidence still be considered "illegally" gained? If said conversation was in the hall, etc..

Say there is a GF, whom did not stand watch over the private meetings. Such a person would not have the opportunity to overhear anything they should not. The GF's fear might not be that they overheard and repeating is "illegally". But that it might be against their employment and grounds for termination. That too might set off the 'hush~ hush" of guilt of wrong doing. Is this possible?? (Not saying it is, just the rules, i Orange county.)

[Snaz]

Originally Posted by butterfly1978

Okay I have been thinking about this. If it came out that RK overheard a private conversation with JB, that would mean that she admitted to guilt to JB and he did not report which is also a no-no. Which would also give credability to DC when he had said JB told him not to call LE if he found Caylee but to call him.

WOW what a mess that would be. I hope its not true.

BBM

Question for one of the attorneys:

Is it true that if KC were to have admitted to her attorney that she killed Caylee and told him where to find the body, the attorney could then NOT reveal this information?

I always heard the attorney is bound by A/C privilege if a client confesses to him (unless the client is a threat to herself or someone else... or something like that). And if the attorney divulges that privileged information, isn't that grounds for disbarment?

Could one of the attorneys here please clarify this?

TIA!

[AZlawyer]

I would be interested to see whether Themis and rhornsby agree, but IMO:

1. If KC told JB where the body was, NO he could not tell anyone else other than members of the defense team. NO he could not report the information to the police. YES he could send a member of the defense team to go look at the body and not tell LE if he found it (but I don't think DC was a member of the defense team at the time.) NO he could not have the body moved or alter the evidence in any way.

2. I don't think JB ever said anything about meetings or statements made in the hallway at the jail. I think every meeting JB had with KC was in a room designated for such meetings. If a jail employee obtained information about the location of the body by eavesdropping somehow on a conversation between JB and KC, and that information was transmitted to Kronk, I think it is very likely that the body and all related evidence would be excluded at trial. BUT it's important to keep in mind that the only source of this information AFAIK is Leonard Padilla, who has been notoriously unreliable in this case.

[marspiter]

Hmm for arguments sake lets say LP is right about the daisy chain to Rk. However lets also assume DC was the one that was sent to search but was not under written contract for the defense at the time (only under contract with the A's). Could the SA argue the evidence is still admissible because it would have been found anyway do to DC's testimony?

I know that's a lot of "if's" and speculation but even if there is a daisy chain linked to RK aren't there still circumstances where the body and evidence from the scene can still come into play?

[The World According]

That is my question also....what about the inevitable discovery excetption:

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows into evidence illegally seized items that would have been discovered lawfully anyway. This exception allows evidence to be admitted, even though it was seized in violation of the Constitution.

In order to successfully assert the inevitable discovery exception, some courts require that the prosecution demonstrate that the police were in the process of actively pursuing a lawful investigation that would have led inevitably to the discovery of the evidence at the time that the evidence was illegally obtained. Some courts not only do not require active pursuit of an alternative legal means of discovery at the moment of the illegal search, but they do not even require that it be law enforcement officials who are hypothesized to be the ones who inevitably would have discovered the evidence.

Couldn't the prosecution use this exception....to the fruit of the poisonous tree claim, if one were made?

[AZlawyer]

Originally Posted by marspiter

Hmm for arguments sake lets say LP is right about the daisy chain to Rk. However lets also assume DC was the one that was sent to search but was not under written contract for the defense at the time (only under contract with the A's). Could the SA argue the evidence is still admissible because it would have been found anyway do to DC's testimony?

I know that's a lot of "if's" and speculation but even if there is a daisy chain linked to RK aren't there still circumstances where the body and evidence from the scene can still come into play?

Originally Posted by The World According

That is my question also....what about the inevitable discovery excetption:

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows into evidence illegally seized items that would have been discovered lawfully anyway. This exception allows evidence to be admitted, even though it was seized in violation of the Constitution.

In order to successfully assert the inevitable discovery exception, some courts require that the prosecution demonstrate that the police were in the process of actively pursuing a lawful investigation that would have led inevitably to the discovery of the evidence at the time that the evidence was illegally obtained. Some courts not only do not require active pursuit of an alternative legal means of discovery at the moment of the illegal search, but they do not even require that it be law enforcement officials who are hypothesized to be the ones who inevitably would have discovered the evidence.

Couldn't the prosecution use this exception....to the fruit of the poisonous tree claim, if one were made?

Assuming for sake of argument that RK had illegally-obtained info that led to the discovery of the body--and DC did not--then it appears that the illegally-obtained info WAS necessary to find the body, because DC didn't find it.

[Linz]

So then, taking this loose speculation a step further (why not?): if some version of the daisy-chain theory was proven factual, and if the body was deemed inadmissible, would it be allowable to empanel a juror that knew of its discovery? (Specifically, that it was found, not necessarily in what manner.) With all the media attention this case has received, it seems like an impossibility to fill an entire jury box with people who haven't heard that Caylee's remains were found. (I shudder to think of the type of jurors they'd dig up even if they were able to find enough.) How would this case proceed in such an instance?



PS- If this is too far O/T or just too ridiculously theoretical, please ignore.



ETA: Forgot about the non-English speaking population- maybe this case hasn't been covered as heavily in the other various media? Lol as I'm picturing an all-Sikh jury or something of the sort. Couldn't see it benefiting KC really; I'm sure JB's made certain this story got plenty of press in the Hispanic community. If all these hypotheticals came to pass anyway.

So I guess I answered my own post... now how do I delete this?

[chefmom]

Would letters being carried by JB from the jail to the A's or DC from KC be protected under A/C privilege, even if said letters had bypassed jail security illegally? KWIM? It has been inferred in the jail videos that JB was taking letters back and forth between the A family and KC even though any correspondence was supposed to be checked by jail officials. IF KC had drawn a map of where she placed Caylee and had it delivered to the A's or DC via JB and his briefcase, and IF DC had now turned said map over to LE, would this be covered as work product or protected by A/C? Thanks!

[strawberry]

You guys are making me nervous. Now I won't rest easy until I find out what the secret meeting was supposed to be about.

[AZlawyer]

Originally Posted by chefmom

Would letters being carried by JB from the jail to the A's or DC from KC be protected under A/C privilege, even if said letters had bypassed jail security illegally? KWIM? It has been inferred in the jail videos that JB was taking letters back and forth between the A family and KC even though any correspondence was supposed to be checked by jail officials. IF KC had drawn a map of where she placed Caylee and had it delivered to the A's or DC via JB and his briefcase, and IF DC had now turned said map over to LE, would this be covered as work product or protected by A/C? Thanks!

There would be no privilege for communications delivered to third parties through JB.

Maybe JB reviewed letters from KC to the A's and thought they were "safe" but in fact KC had used some secret spy code in her letter to Lee and he finally remembered where he put his secret decoder ring from when they were kids and figured it out and slipped a note in with the teddy bear that got mailed to the psychic and......

[steadychick]

IF the daisy chain was true and the evidence, including the finding of the body, was thrown out, would there be an explanation to anyone as to why, or would absolutely none of it be presented in the first place. I'm confused as to how this would work without some information about how it transpired being released. Sounds like a nightmare under the sunshine laws to me.